Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 30th Apr 2010 21:40 UTC, submitted by Helge
Legal Well, this certainly explains a whole lot. Both Apple and Microsoft have stated that the legality of Theora is highly debatable, and as it turns out, they knew more than we do - most likely courtesy of their close involvement with the MPEG-LA. Responding to an email from Free Software Foundation Europe activist Hugo Roy, Steve Jobs has stated that a patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora. Update: Monty Montgomery of Xiph (Ogg and Theora's parent organisation) has responded on Slashdot: "If Jobs's email is genuine, this is a powerful public gaffe ('All video codecs are covered by patents'). He'd be confirming MPEG's assertion in plain language anyone can understand. It would only strengthen the pushback against software patents and add to Apple's increasing PR mess. Macbooks and iPads may be pretty sweet, but creative individuals don't really like to give their business to jackbooted thugs."
Order by: Score:
Hey!
by fretinator on Fri 30th Apr 2010 21:57 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Pandora, I have this rectangular solid object over here, with some kind of lid on the top. I was wondering if you would be so kind as to open it...

Reply Score: 11

RE: Hey!
by tylerdurden on Sat 1st May 2010 16:09 UTC in reply to "Hey!"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Technically, it's supposed to be Pandora the one giving the box, and you the one opening it ;-)

Edited 2010-05-01 16:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Hey!
by clhodapp on Sat 1st May 2010 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Hey!"
clhodapp Member since:
2009-12-04

I nearly declared this to be "inaccurate", as it certainly is Pandora who opens the container in the story, but found myself unable when further research to make sure that I was being fair brought me to the discovery that Pandora is actually supposed to have a jar (not a box), but an inaccurate transcribing by a man called Erasmus in the sixteenth century stuck and now we all know the wrong story.

Edited 2010-05-01 20:50 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Hey!
by de_wizze on Mon 3rd May 2010 07:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Hey!"
de_wizze Member since:
2005-10-31

All the more pertinent to the story at hand.

Reply Score: 2

Flash for Future?
by churlish_Helmut on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:00 UTC
churlish_Helmut
Member since:
2010-04-12

That sound not good. We will definitly see what is there in the bush, but until then we should stay where we are...

To summarize: There is no future for Theora... ?

Flash oder H264 ? Or could i say pest or cholera?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Flash for Future?
by bhtooefr on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:31 UTC in reply to "Flash for Future?"
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

Flash video nowadays *IS* H.264.

You could always fall back to VP6, but the quality there isn't good for the bitrate.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Flash for Future?
by segedunum on Sat 1st May 2010 01:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Flash for Future?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Flash video nowadays *IS* H.264.

I wish people would stop repeating this. The format that arrives at your computer is Flash and not h.264 - regardless of what it was encoded in before. It has no relevance to HTML5 video and its support whatsoever.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Flash for Future?
by bhtooefr on Sat 1st May 2010 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Flash for Future?"
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

The player interface is delivered in SWF format, yes.

The video is in a separate file, which is an FLV file.

http://bhtooefr.ath.cx/images/h264flv.png

Flash video, freshly grabbed from YouTube. H.264 codec.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Flash for Future?
by segedunum on Sun 2nd May 2010 22:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Flash for Future?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Flash has historically used Sorensen Spark and the On2 protocol like VP6 before adding h.264 itself, but nevertheless, what you receive at your end distributed over the internet is still Flash specific and you still need to re-encode if you target the web. Bulk transcoding is still very difficult so most of the video remains in the previous two codecs behind the scenes.

People seem to think they can claim this as popular h.264 support for web video. They can't.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Flash for Future?
by bhtooefr on Sun 2nd May 2010 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Flash for Future?"
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

It's not a re-encode, it's a container format change.

And, if you support what's in the container, you can support the container without too much additional work.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Flash for Future?
by segedunum on Sun 2nd May 2010 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Flash for Future?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

It's not a re-encode, it's a container format change.

Support for a new codec has nothing to do with the container. Most web video for Flash is still Sorensen and VP6 behind the scenes, so yes, we are talking about a mass re-encode job if we're going to somehow claim that h.264 is widely used for web video currently.

Again, trying to somehow claim h.264 is widely used for web video because Flash video can now support it as an input is just plain wrong. I'm afraid you're talking nonsense. Moving to h.264 is a hell of a lot more than simply switching from Flash to HTML5 video as a container.

Edited 2010-05-02 22:44 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Flash for Future?
by bhtooefr on Sun 2nd May 2010 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Flash for Future?"
bhtooefr Member since:
2009-02-19

Except a large percentage web video is YouTube, and YouTube's vids are all H.264.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Flash for Future?
by Carewolf on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:43 UTC in reply to "Flash for Future?"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Effective FUD. Jobs was deliberately vague. Don't count on any actual legal action ever being taking. If these empty threats work, it wouldn't be needed.

The real question is why this sudden aggression? Are Apple really that scared of Theora that they need to ask for help from their friends in the Evil League of Evil?

Edited 2010-04-30 23:44 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Flash for Future?
by Tuishimi on Sat 1st May 2010 08:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Flash for Future?"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

[edit] Nevermind... link is dead.

Edited 2010-05-01 08:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Flash for Future?
by segedunum on Sat 1st May 2010 01:53 UTC in reply to "Flash for Future?"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

To summarize: There is no future for Theora... ?

It has nothing to do with Theora and everything about what format Google chooses to use for YouTube, which could well be VP8. By talking about Theora he is implicating VP8 and then YouTube and Google and trying to bully them into using Apple's chosen format now that they have burned all their bridges with Adobe.

It is highly unlikely to be successful. After Google's run-ins with Apple and Apple pissing Adobe off Google have every reason in the world to make Apple's cool products even more incompatible with the content people actually want to access with them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Flash for Future?
by boldingd on Mon 3rd May 2010 18:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Flash for Future?"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

+1 insightful, I hadn't thought of it that way. Hopefully you're right. And if Google is the intended target, hopefully they'll see this for the completely baseless F.U.D. that it is, and disregard it completely. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Flash for Future?
by phoudoin on Sat 1st May 2010 02:23 UTC in reply to "Flash for Future?"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

They're no future for Theora (or Dirac, for that matter) only if you're too afraid to raise your finger to patent system and, more pratical, simply download and install Theora codec on your machine, whatever your OS is. It's free, it's available both decoder and encoder and I'll bet nothing could stop its diffusion.

Now, if you're afraid at first FUD attempt, the issue is not patent holders but your fear.

Reply Score: 3

I'm sick of this
by Boldie on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:04 UTC
Boldie
Member since:
2007-03-26

thats it. I'm just sick of it.

Reply Score: 20

RE: I'm sick of this
by kragil on Sat 1st May 2010 08:00 UTC in reply to "I'm sick of this"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Amen brother,

I hate the current news. It is all about lock down, censorship and patents and people don't get it.

I am afraid the internet will be a very different place in 7 years time.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: I'm sick of this
by hankheathen on Sun 2nd May 2010 05:15 UTC in reply to "RE: I'm sick of this"
hankheathen Member since:
2009-05-13

"I am afraid the internet will be a very different place in 7 years time."

Er... I'm guessing you're right. It was a lot different in 2003 than it is now too.

Reply Score: 1

v H264 is the future
by kristoph on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:05 UTC
RE: H264 is the future
by Kroc on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:08 UTC in reply to "H264 is the future"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

VP3 (Theora) of which VP8 is a descendant predates H.264.

If there are any patents surrounding Theora, Google now own them.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: H264 is the future
by kaiwai on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:48 UTC in reply to "RE: H264 is the future"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

VP3 (Theora) of which VP8 is a descendant predates H.264.

If there are any patents surrounding Theora, Google now own them.


On what basis do you assume that? you assume that none of those, inadvertently, on patents held by third parties? the patent world is such a minefield it wouldn't surprise me that if you wrote a 100,000 line application that it doesn't at least step on a couple of patents inadvertently. One only needs to look at the numerous patents Microsoft has tripped over when developing - patents whose language is so broad almost anything you could imagine would get covered by it. I don't blame, therefore, vendors being weary of Theora or any claimed-to-be-patent-free project when there is the risk there that they don't wish to take.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: H264 is the future
by Kroc on Sat 1st May 2010 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: H264 is the future"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Then a game of global thermo-nuclear war it is.

Perhaps if all the companies destroy each other then maybe patent reform might come about.

It's been 10 years. Why only now? I think the minefield of which you speak is so complicated that even the MPEG-LA are having difficulty scouring the Theora design for infringements and trying to put together a water-tight case which could stand up to Google and their portfolio.

Does Theora violate some broad patent? Almost certainly. Would said patent possibly be voided if it were brought up in court and scrutinised? Possibly. So it's not just a case of the MPEG-LA saying that Theora violates their patents, they know they must also beat a games of chess ahead of time with an opponent whose moves predates their own.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: H264 is the future
by segedunum on Sat 1st May 2010 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: H264 is the future"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the minefield of which you speak is so complicated that even the MPEG-LA are having difficulty scouring the Theora design for infringements and trying to put together a water-tight case which could stand up to Google and their portfolio.

They'll be desperate to do so. There's a hell of a lot of money at stake for them if they cannot hammer h.264 in as the standard for HTML5 video and at the moment all they can do is threaten Theora.

However, the real threat is directed at VP8, YouTube and Google to behave and support the 'right' format.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: H264 is the future
by lemur2 on Sat 1st May 2010 08:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: H264 is the future"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"VP3 (Theora) of which VP8 is a descendant predates H.264.

If there are any patents surrounding Theora, Google now own them.


On what basis do you assume that? you assume that none of those, inadvertently, on patents held by third parties? the patent world is such a minefield it wouldn't surprise me that if you wrote a 100,000 line application that it doesn't at least step on a couple of patents inadvertently. One only needs to look at the numerous patents Microsoft has tripped over when developing - patents whose language is so broad almost anything you could imagine would get covered by it. I don't blame, therefore, vendors being weary of Theora or any claimed-to-be-patent-free project when there is the risk there that they don't wish to take.
"

VP3 pre-dates H264, and VP3 is itself patented.

If there is some technology which h2464 also uses, and it turns out that has been patented twice, the the USPTO has made an error as they are not supposed to award two patents for the same methods.

If USPTO has made an error and there are in fact two patents covering the same method ... the older one will prevail.

This gives the advantage to VP3, not H264.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: H264 is the future
by Luis on Sat 1st May 2010 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: H264 is the future"
Luis Member since:
2006-04-28

The problem is that I don't think that what really matters are the original algorithms. It's all about the optimizations. The big difference between the original VP3 and Theora is in the optimizations used, and in those I'm afraid that they've always been behind h.264, working around its patents. I even doubt that VP8 is doing something very different from what h.264 does in the area of optimizations, so Google must be scrutinizing the code and the patents to make sure they don't step on them before they can open source it.

All these codecs are using similar methods. Nobody knows what would a court say about it. Is similar similar enough to make it a effectual infringement? Or should the patent only cover the very specific way of implementing an optimization and leave any other similar method (AKA workaround) uncovered by the patent?

But as the first poster in the thread suggested, if anyone dares to open that box gracefully handed by Pandora, they might find themselves in a very big trouble too. I also agree with some other poster that this war, if started, could show what a big mess software patents are and it would probably mean the end of them, for good. So I think that either way (whether they decide to go after Theora or not), MPEG-LA is doomed to lose here (EXCEPT if they succeed in their tactic of scaring people with FUD and never starting an open war. That's their only chance and they'll hold to it as long as they can).

Reply Score: 4

RE: H264 is the future
by l3v1 on Sat 1st May 2010 07:00 UTC in reply to "H264 is the future"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

The MPEG-LA portfolio is so broad that it is terribly unlikely that there will be any pure codec

That is true. Yet, I've always found it fascinating that a company's monopoly when used for killing off competition has [not always, but still] been taken as being bad, but an organization comprised of the same companies creating patent-encumbered "standards" following the same behavior - i.e. for killing off the same competition - is let to roam free and do as they see fit.

Problem is, after they've been allowed to get this far, there's no way to stop them now.

Reply Score: 4

RE: H264 is the future
by boldingd on Mon 3rd May 2010 18:37 UTC in reply to "H264 is the future"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

You have something of a point: any patent that covers Theora probably also covers any technology that encodes compressed video. If MPEG-LA holds such a patent, a patent that covers Theora, then they probably hold a patent that covers all functional video codecs (and, notably, would therefore cover any hypothetical competitor they would ever have). It would put them in a position to guarantee that their products where the only legal video codecs anywhere, period, ever (as any competing codec would infringe their patens).
Such a patent would have to be something like a patent on "the presentation of moving pictures", or "compression algorithms optimized for sequences of images", or something else inescapably fundamental to the concept of a video codec.

But, as Lemur has frequently said (much as it pains me to paraphrase him), if such a patent existed, for all the effort that Apple (and probably MPEG-LA) have put into finding it, it would've been brought to bear by now. It would be an incredibly powerful weapon, one they would not have waited until now to use -- and one that they would not be vague about. The moment they came into possession of such a patent, there would be a press release that read, "we now control the video distribution industry", and my God would that control be exploited.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: H264 is the future
by lemur2 on Wed 5th May 2010 02:27 UTC in reply to "RE: H264 is the future"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You have something of a point: any patent that covers Theora probably also covers any technology that encodes compressed video. If MPEG-LA holds such a patent, a patent that covers Theora, then they probably hold a patent that covers all functional video codecs (and, notably, would therefore cover any hypothetical competitor they would ever have). It would put them in a position to guarantee that their products where the only legal video codecs anywhere, period, ever (as any competing codec would infringe their patens). Such a patent would have to be something like a patent on "the presentation of moving pictures", or "compression algorithms optimized for sequences of images", or something else inescapably fundamental to the concept of a video codec. But, as Lemur has frequently said (much as it pains me to paraphrase him), if such a patent existed, for all the effort that Apple (and probably MPEG-LA) have put into finding it, it would've been brought to bear by now. It would be an incredibly powerful weapon, one they would not have waited until now to use -- and one that they would not be vague about. The moment they came into possession of such a patent, there would be a press release that read, "we now control the video distribution industry", and my God would that control be exploited.


There is another aspect to this that has occurred to me. I present a series of facts in a hopefully logical sequence:

(1) On2 applied for, and were granted, patents to their VP3 (and subsequent) codecs.
(2) MPEG LA is a consortium that has tried VERY hard to gather a complete patent pool which covers H.264/AVC, so that no other party is able to attack MPEG LA licensees. This is their whole sales pitch for H.264.
(3) On2 is NOT a licensor of MPEG LA
(4) Therefore, MPEG LA did not need On2's patents in order to assure that user's of H.264 would not be sued by anybody else.
(5) Therefore, On2's patents cover methods which are not used by H.264
(6) Therefore, as long as Theora and/or VP8 stick to methods patented by On2, it is highly unlikely that anyone (especially MPEG LA members) will be able to find another patent which reads on the technology of Theora or VP8.

Reply Score: 2

Apple is so uncool
by chemical_scum on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:07 UTC
chemical_scum
Member since:
2005-11-02

FUD, They (Apple, Microsoft and MPEG-LA) are just trying to intimidate and prevent the adoption of Theora. Lets see if they actually sue any company that distributes the Theora Codec. They are too scared they may open the above mentioned Pandora's box.

Jobs is acting as a front man for this. He is beneath contempt and so uncool.

Reply Score: 14

RE: Apple is so uncool
by Torrance on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:43 UTC in reply to "Apple is so uncool"
Torrance Member since:
2006-04-05

Agreed. This is classic FUD maneuvering, and I think nothing will come of it except to harm the prospects for Theora.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Apple is so uncool
by hankheathen on Sun 2nd May 2010 05:19 UTC in reply to "Apple is so uncool"
hankheathen Member since:
2009-05-13

"... are just trying to intimidate and prevent the adoption of Theora."

Um... I think people NOT adopting Theora has been going on for quite some time now...

Okay, can anyone who has already posted in this thread do me a favour?

Post again, explaining how the licensing terms of H.264 is actually going to affect them, in any real way.

And please, spare me the bullshit hypothetical FUD lines of "Oh Noes! what if I ever want to start delivering web-based video for commercial purposes at some indeterminate point in the future, despite never doing anything like it before? The MPEG-LA will send in shock troops and make me pay millions of dollars if I use H.264!"

I'm talking real world problems, not fantasy what-if scenarios like many of you monkeys fantasise could happen to you.

Anyone?

Edited 2010-05-02 05:29 UTC

Reply Score: 1

arggh, f*ck patents
by barkholt on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:11 UTC
barkholt
Member since:
2005-12-13

Animated GIF is the future.

Reply Score: 6

RE: arggh, f*ck patents
by umccullough on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:14 UTC in reply to "arggh, f*ck patents"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Animated GIF is the future.


Not far from what I was thinking...

I'm guessing uncompressed RGB bitmap frame motion video is probably patent-free still ;)

Now we just need more bandwidth to stream it and larger disks to store it on!

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: arggh, f*ck patents
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:14 UTC in reply to "RE: arggh, f*ck patents"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I have an idea.

Just give me each frame as a bitmap, I'll print it, staple the damn stack of paper, and make a flipbook machine.

Fcuk this patent bullshit.

Reply Score: 11

RE[3]: arggh, f*ck patents
by Kroc on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: arggh, f*ck patents"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

Hello, I am John Barnes Linnett, and I do believe that you are infringing upon my most innovative patent "The Kineograph a new optical illusion" http://www.flipbook.info/history.php#linnett

Please remit the payment of 1 Guinea forthwith.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: arggh, f*ck patents
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: arggh, f*ck patents"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Steve Jobs, you're a f***ing prick. Maybe another organ will go bad some day. Go to hell, Apple.

Sorry, had to let that out; Apple has really been pissing me off a lot lately, and I don't even own an Apple product. I'm seriously contemplating whether I should even bother getting a Mac now... I'm heavily leaning towards "HELL NO" right about now.

Edited 2010-04-30 22:44 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE[5]: arggh, f*ck patents
by vivainio on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: arggh, f*ck patents"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

I'm seriously contemplating whether I should even bother getting a Mac now... I'm heavily leaning towards "HELL NO" right about now.


Why are you even contemplating this?

You don't need a Mac. The things you can do with Mac that you can't do with Linux, you sure as hell can do with Windows 7. Your soul will thank you later ;-).

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: arggh, f*ck patents
by patrix on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: arggh, f*ck patents"
patrix Member since:
2006-05-21

Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer must be breaking out the ol' champagne lately, now that it's Apple who's Evil and everyone prefers Microsoft.

How soon we forget.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: arggh, f*ck patents
by frood on Sat 1st May 2010 05:20 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: arggh, f*ck patents"
frood Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah. Apple have become their own 1984 advert.

Reply Score: 10

RE[6]: arggh, f*ck patents
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: arggh, f*ck patents"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Why are you even contemplating this?

I wouldn't be, if I didn't have this high level of interest in software and operating systems to begin with. To be honest, I don't give a rat's ass about Apple's hardware (the list of complaints I have about it never ends...). It's the OS as well as the software running on top of it that interests me (even though I have many complaints about that too).

You don't need a Mac. The things you can do with Mac that you can't do with Linux, you sure as hell can do with Windows 7. Your soul will thank you later ;-).

True, but really, it'd be more of a toy to me. I guess I'm just a geek... heh. No matter how bad the price, lock-in, restrictions, attitude of the company and various other aspects are, it's always hard to reject playing with a new toy (piece of software). It's like a curse or something. It sucks, really.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: arggh, f*ck patents
by nt_jerkface on Sat 1st May 2010 01:45 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: arggh, f*ck patents"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


True, but really, it'd be more of a toy to me. I guess I'm just a geek... heh. No matter how bad the price, lock-in, restrictions, attitude of the company and various other aspects are, it's always hard to reject playing with a new toy (piece of software). It's like a curse or something. It sucks, really.


Get a Mac mini from ebay. That way you can continue with your one man protest while not sending the company a dime.

If just want it for a toy then you don't want to spend that much money anyways. I do testing in OSX sometimes and while the geeky side of me likes playing with something different it's never been appealing enough to make me switch from completely. The nice thing about the Mac mini is that if you get bored of it you can put it in a drawer and use the monitor for something else.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: arggh, f*ck patents
by woegjiub on Sat 1st May 2010 07:57 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: arggh, f*ck patents"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

If you're only after the OS, there's always virtualbox.
The new version has OSX Guest support.

That or hackintoshes, which are a nice way to stick it to apple :p

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: arggh, f*ck patents
by tylerdurden on Sat 1st May 2010 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: arggh, f*ck patents"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

LOL, going from Apple to Microsoft... it is like telling people that if it gets too hot in the frying pan they could always jump into the flames.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: arggh, f*ck patents
by vivainio on Sat 1st May 2010 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: arggh, f*ck patents"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

LOL, going from Apple to Microsoft... it is like telling people that if it gets too hot in the frying pan they could always jump into the flames.


Yeah, flames tend to be more benign than heated metal.

Microsoft attempted to make the world their walled garden (win32 api, ActiveX, Palladium, Silverlight) and failed. There is no indication that they will succeed now where they failed earlier. They are also being closely watched for anti-competitive behavior.

While the beast has not been completely tamed, Microsoft is currently less dangerous than Apple. Not because they lack power, but because they can't be quite as ruthless as a corporation as Apple is currently (and Apple gets applauded for that by their fan base, while Microsoft never really had a fan base to begin with).

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: arggh, f*ck patents
by kaiwai on Sat 1st May 2010 01:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: arggh, f*ck patents"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Steve Jobs, you're a f***ing prick. Maybe another organ will go bad some day. Go to hell, Apple.

Sorry, had to let that out; Apple has really been pissing me off a lot lately, and I don't even own an Apple product. I'm seriously contemplating whether I should even bother getting a Mac now... I'm heavily leaning towards "HELL NO" right about now.


For me the h264 is the least of my worries; the laundry list of problems I have with Apple have pretty much nothing to do with politics and everything to do with their products and policies. Take the Video Decoder Framework - only supporting three NVIDIA models even though VP3 has been available for many years on Nvidia based GPU's as sold in the past. Then there is the issue of ATI based video cards, what is happening with them? Why no video acceleration love for them? People talk about how Adobe uses the lack of video acceleration as an excuse, then how about this, why not give Adobe access to all they want and then prove them wrong: "we provided them with all that they want and Flash still sucks". Well, as someone pointed out early, the crippling of the Flash experience has less to do with altruistic motivations and everything to do with protecting the Apple Store under the banner of 'open standards'.

Then there is 10.6 which has breakage after breakage after breakage with each update; if Microsoft shipped that many updates with broken components there would be hell to pay and yet all of this is ignored. Then there is the issue of the i-devices being developed at the expense of the desktop - anyone remember the 10.5 fiasco where it was delayed because of the developers pre-occupied with the iPhone?

For me I don't care about the politics that go around but I do care when I'm getting shafted by the raw end of the stick; where hardware is deliberately crippled, support not extended to hardware that support it, where problems with the operating system are blamed on third parties not 'doing their job' when in reality it is the operating system vendor not fixing their operating system. Where third parties are blamed for the incompetence of the vendor; when the third party invites Apple and says, "lets work together to improve Flash" and all Apple can say is "piss off".

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: arggh, f*ck patents
by oinet on Sat 1st May 2010 22:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: arggh, f*ck patents"
oinet Member since:
2010-03-23

Go to hell, Apple.


I'd like to see it being chewn first.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: arggh, f*ck patents
by tessmonsta on Sat 1st May 2010 03:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: arggh, f*ck patents"
tessmonsta Member since:
2009-07-16

*snickers*

Reply Score: 1

Which patents?
by ShadesFox on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:15 UTC
ShadesFox
Member since:
2006-10-01

It is all just crap until they say which patents and where Theora infringes. Show us the code SCO, show us the code.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Which patents?
by WorknMan on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:27 UTC in reply to "Which patents?"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

It is all just crap until they say which patents and where Theora infringes. Show us the code SCO, show us the code.


I think when it comes to patents, there should be some kind of law that, if you're going to threaten somebody with a patent lawsuit, then you must list the specific patent (or patents) that you feel are being violated. In other words, either shit or get off the pot. None of this 'you may be violating one or more of our patents' BS.

Reply Score: 14

RE[2]: Which patents?
by wargum on Sat 1st May 2010 00:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Which patents?"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

"In recent news, president Obama explained the new patent reform bill to the Senate. Quote: 'You either bring it on or you shut the f--k up! We just cannot accept these patent threads anymore! God bless America!'. We registered thunderous applause from both democrates and republicans."

-dreams

Edited 2010-05-01 00:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Which patents?
by marcp on Sat 1st May 2010 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Which patents?"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

Actually, there's almost nothing worst than U.S law.
It's scattered all over the states, every state has it's own "freak'a'boo" variation of the same law and it all depends on the precedenses - "when the man kills relative in anger and gets free, than every family-killer must not be pledged guilty".

Pure, fcuking nonsense, USA! sick.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Which patents?
by Bobthearch on Sat 1st May 2010 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Which patents?"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Sates have nothing to do with patent laws or enforcement.

Edited 2010-05-01 16:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Which patents?
by Odwalla on Sat 1st May 2010 00:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Which patents?"
Odwalla Member since:
2006-02-01

So contact your senator/representative express your opinion, convince them of the validity of your point of view, and then volunteer to help draft the legislation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Which patents?
by tyrione on Sat 1st May 2010 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Which patents?"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"It is all just crap until they say which patents and where Theora infringes. Show us the code SCO, show us the code.


I think when it comes to patents, there should be some kind of law that, if you're going to threaten somebody with a patent lawsuit, then you must list the specific patent (or patents) that you feel are being violated. In other words, either shit or get off the pot. None of this 'you may be violating one or more of our patents' BS.
"

Since those patents are publicly listed, if you're going to create a video codec you'd better check before you invest.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Which patents?
by l3v1 on Sat 1st May 2010 07:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Which patents?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Since those patents are publicly listed, if you're going to create a video codec you'd better check before you invest.

Then you'd better stop coding any video coding related algorithm whatsoever. There are just so many alorithms and variations that form the basis of almost all codecs; above them the precious patent system let everyone&dog patent every damn small piece of crap they could come up with. In the end what you get is a damn high wall of stone around you.

The only solution is to come up with an idea that is so groundbeakingly new that nobody has ever tried to patent it - and you're f*cked, since creating, implementing, testing and transforming into an all-usable version a new video coding algorithm could take so many man-months of research and coding most people can't even imagine.

And then you'll need to proove you're as good or better than others, which will be followed by everyone else threatening with lawsuits, and so on and so forth.

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Which patents?
by Radio on Sat 1st May 2010 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Which patents?"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Tyrione > Ever heard of submarine patents ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent

Edited 2010-05-01 21:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Which patents?
by marcp on Sat 1st May 2010 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Which patents?"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

Oh, really? Imagine creating a knife and having to look closely to every friggin' knife on the planet, just so you don't infringe any artificial PATENT. C'mon!

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Which patents?
by Bobthearch on Sat 1st May 2010 16:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Which patents?"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Huh? Cutlery companies are VERY active in patenting their designs and technologies, and defending those patents.

Edited 2010-05-01 16:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Which patents?
by Radio on Sat 1st May 2010 21:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Which patents?"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

But we haven't heard of a "patent for a sharp piece of metal" being granted et enforced. That's how broad (and ridiculous) software patents are.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Which patents?
by Bobthearch on Sat 1st May 2010 22:16 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Which patents?"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

I assume such a patent request would be denied.

At least that's what happens in the world of non-software patents. ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Which patents?
by marcp on Sat 1st May 2010 12:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Which patents?"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

I'd say there should be law that forces the accusators to pay huge amount of money to accused when the accusations happens to be false-based. Either this, or law suit from the accused part of this 'deal'.

Overally I agree with you.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Which patents?
by vivainio on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:37 UTC in reply to "Which patents?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

It is all just crap until they say which patents and where Theora infringes. Show us the code SCO, show us the code.


It's not at all unlikely that patents are actually being violated. And those patents are probably not frivolous ones, either, or something that could be worked around easily.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Which patents?
by zlynx on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Which patents?"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

But it is quite likely that any patents being violated have overly broad claims.

Overly broad claims are just standard practice for any patent.

Of course, by the time the court cases to actually decide are finished, the patents will have expired anyway.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Which patents?
by lemur2 on Sat 1st May 2010 08:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Which patents?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

But it is quite likely that any patents being violated have overly broad claims.

Overly broad claims are just standard practice for any patent.

Of course, by the time the court cases to actually decide are finished, the patents will have expired anyway.


All patents make overly broad claims, but when it comes to the crunch the are judged ONLY on the very specific claims.

Microsoft's FAT patents are classic. It turns out that the specific claims are not for FAT (which is not Microsoft's invention anyway), but rather, for Long File Names (LFN) stored on a FAT filesystem. Even more specifically, the patents are awarded based on Microsoft's claim to have invented a novel method of storing BOTH a LFN and a short (8.3) filename for each file at the same time.

So, to avoid this patent, all that has to be done is to fail to store both a LFN and a SFN. Either one or the other for any given file, but never both. This way, your FAT LFN-compatible software still does not violate the specific claim.

Just avoid the claimed specific methods and you don't infringe the patent.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Which patents?
by RIchard James13 on Sat 1st May 2010 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Which patents?"
RIchard James13 Member since:
2007-10-26

The LFN storage technique however was ingenious. It is not an overly broad technique.

Long File Names (LFN) are stored on a FAT file system using a trick—adding (possibly multiple) additional entries into the directory before the normal file entry. The additional entries are marked with the Volume Label, System, Hidden, and Read Only attributes (yielding 0x0F), which is a combination that is not expected in the MS-DOS environment, and therefore ignored by MS-DOS programs and third-party utilities. Notably, a directory containing only volume labels is considered as empty and is allowed to be deleted; such a situation appears if files created with long names are deleted from plain DOS.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Which patents?
by phoudoin on Sat 1st May 2010 02:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Which patents?"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

It's not at all unlikely that patents are actually being violated.


First, software patents should be legal. And it's not yet the case everywhere on this little and every day more crazier planet.

Steve, "All video codecs are covered by patents" ?

And? I really wonder how one could ever succeed to forbid a community of benevolent developers to write whatever piece of software they want and a community of users to actually use it!? No patent system could ever forbid someone to share with other people something he develop. Who cares about patent but patents holders, BTW?

But I hear all what you said, patent trolls. Thanks to remember me that I always could put my money where my mouth is.

Oh, and please, patent system, please continue to push to enforce your system throu the throat of people: the more you do it, the sooner they will bite you back. Hard.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Which patents?
by l3v1 on Sat 1st May 2010 07:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Which patents?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Who cares about patent but patents holders, BTW?

Exactly.

And another thing, "they: always say patents drive innovation. Well, my a** they do. This is just one of the many examples when the opposite is true. In this system only the first ones to patent something are the winners, everybody else is just paying up. Innovating can be working up to a point - since you constantly seek new unpatented ways of doing things - but after a while things will get very hard and even if you come up with something a bit dissimilar, those first ones will always come down on you hard with threats.

Well, it's your system, you let it get this far, you should be the ones who stop it.

If you can, that is.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Which patents?
by UltraZelda64 on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:57 UTC in reply to "Which patents?"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

From what I read out of the message, it looks like they'll tell us alright... in the form of lawsuits against people/companies/distributions/whatever distributing Theora codecs. They'd rather sue than get this straightened out in a more responsible and respectable manner.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Which patents?
by Sean Parsons on Sat 1st May 2010 00:22 UTC in reply to "Which patents?"
Sean Parsons Member since:
2005-09-11

It is all just crap until they say which patents and where Theora infringes. Show us the code SCO, show us the code.


Amen to that. I'd also throw in the current patent threats MS is making against Android to be in the same vein.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Which patents?
by kaiwai on Sat 1st May 2010 02:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Which patents?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Amen to that. I'd also throw in the current patent threats MS is making against Android to be in the same vein.


I'd love to know what patents Microsoft is claiming against Android - I know there is a move to support ActiveSync, but what technology has Android infringed on? it seems to be a stupid game of 'hide the sausage' as so far as Microsoft making accusations against a company and yet only the company and Microsoft know what patents have apparently been infringed. I'm not claiming that their position may be not be legitimate but it does raise questions when the patent holder refuses to divulge exactly what has been violated. There are claims of interface and operating system patents - but what specifically is it violating?

The worst part of this whole mess are the number of idiots that American voters keep voting in each year (senators, presidents, congressmen) who don't know the difference between copyright and patents; then again the US is the country where you win votes simply by bashing gays, promoting guns and declaring you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ(tm)

Edited 2010-05-01 02:12 UTC

Reply Score: 4

And thus, the true face is revealed :-)
by Shkaba on Fri 30th Apr 2010 22:52 UTC
Shkaba
Member since:
2006-06-22

Had MPEG-LA, Apple, and the rest of the mob have a slam dunk case, they would have already tried to sue (theora is not new). This is classic FUD.

Thom, I already stated that Jobs real face, is a true representation of 1984 (guess which side ... *hint* no not the rebel one :-) )

Reply Score: 5

l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

they would have already tried to sue (theora is not new)

You're thinking too short term. They didn't care if there's yet another codec claiming to be free or not. But they care big time if one of these codec will have the opportunity to be broadly adopted as a quasi-standard for web-distributed video content. Oh yes, they care a lot.

Reply Score: 5

Theora may infringe some patents...
by madcrow on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:04 UTC
madcrow
Member since:
2006-03-13

... but Theora is also based on Google-owned technology. Unless Apple and whoever else is part of the "Theora sabotage cabal" really feel like taking on Google and the army of lawyer and revenge patents that it certainly has, I suspect that these threats are no more than an attempt to spread FUD.

Reply Score: 1

Patent absurdity.
by Lazarus on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:05 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

All I have to say.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Patent absurdity.
by phoudoin on Sat 1st May 2010 02:25 UTC in reply to "Patent absurdity. "
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

You could have been even far shorted: patent.

The word itself is absurd.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Patent absurdity.
by l3v1 on Sat 1st May 2010 07:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Patent absurdity. "
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, not exactly.

Patents, in general, seemed to work, at least acceptably. Software patents on the other hand proved to not work, at least for the benefit of the general public. Problem is - I'd guess - when they created this damn system they never thought guys in their living rooms will be able to create tech that could rival theirs.

The main point is, the system is outdated and wrong in many places, they just like how they can abuse it, so they won't easily let it be changed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Patent absurdity.
by phoudoin on Sun 2nd May 2010 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Patent absurdity. "
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

when they created this damn system they never thought guys in their living rooms will be able to create tech that could rival theirs.


Which, how ironic, why the patent system was created in the first place: to protect inventor, any inventor, ideas from market's robbers.

Long time lapse, and now the market use the patent system to forbid any inventor but them to create new ideas, even without profit motivation, worst, in particular when it's without profit motivation.

Reply Score: 1

"legal move against Theora"
by Fettarme H-Milch on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:07 UTC
Fettarme H-Milch
Member since:
2010-02-16

If Theora is covered by patents, assembling a patent pool is not a move against it. It's a process to reveal unknown patents. And unknown patents are the ones companies like Apple or Nokia are actually afraid of -- not a well defined set of patents that they could license and then be OK.

In a way it's even beneficiary to Theora, because those patents may actually not be vital and Xiph could use the MPEG-LA's patent list to code around them.

Imagine the following potential outcome:
The MPEG-LA's research finds out that the Ogg container uses patented techniques, but those are not used in Matroska.
Measure to save Theora: Mux the streams into MKV containers.
Applications that use GStreamer or similar media frameworks wouldn't even notice the difference, because they understand Matroska already.

Within one week the patent situation would have been resolved.

Sticking the head in the sand and pretending like nothing is happening (=ignoring potential submarine patents) is not a way to help Theora.

Reply Score: 3

RE: "legal move against Theora"
by pgeorgi on Sat 1st May 2010 18:31 UTC in reply to ""legal move against Theora""
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

And unknown patents are the ones companies like Apple or Nokia are actually afraid of -- not a well defined set of patents that they could license and then be OK.

Apple is part of the h.264 licensor group, so they are afraid of every alternative to h.264

As for other companies: They could still claim that there are some unknown patents out there.
Noone would have expected Sisvel to cash in on MP3-licensees (that already paid up with Thomson!), and have them police computer gadget fairs for "unlicensed" MP3 players.

Did Thomson (holder of the MP3 pool) protect MP3 licensees against Sisvel? No, they didn't, and no, they can't. As a patent holder you are not required to license your patent - you can require others to stop infringing at all (ie. no product).
There are _very_ few exceptions to that rule (mostly covering "national security" and things like that)

"We fear there might be patents" is code for "we're not interested (for whatever reason) and need a semi-plausible reason for the crowd"

Reply Score: 2

Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

Apple is part of the h.264 licensor group, so they are afraid of every alternative to h.264

That's rubbish. Apple's business does not depend on AVC licensing fees.
MS is in the same group as well. Is Apple now keen to give MS money? No.

And Apple was just an example. Theora does not have big industry backing in general. And over the years whenever a company rep was asked by they don't support Theora, the answer was often that the patent situation was too shady for them.

If that Jobs mail is legit (which I doubt, BTW, because published Jobs mails are usually fake), then MPAG-LA calling for a patent pool is the best way to uncover patents and then let Xiph code around them.

Reply Score: 2

pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

"Apple is part of the h.264 licensor group, so they are afraid of every alternative to h.264

That's rubbish. Apple's business does not depend on AVC licensing fees.
MS is in the same group as well. Is Apple now keen to give MS money? No.
"

With a patent in the pool, they supposely gain free use of the codec.
Any future competitor is either part of this group, or has to pay up, if they manage to declare h.264 the only generally accepted video codec standard in the industry.

It skews the production cost of gadgets like the iDevices: Apple doesn't have to pay for the codec, the average competing company has to pay or face losing some large markets (by not being able to sell to the US and probably elsewhere), while at the same time ensuring that the format is supported by codec functions in COTS chips.

I'm not sure how important the video editing market is for Apple, but the same applies there, too.

If Apple were to support a free codec, they'd essentially help their competitors (all of them, not just the other extortionists at MPEG-LA).

Given that they're already in the MPEG-LA pool, "supporting Microsoft" is probably a lesser evil from their point of view.

And over the years whenever a company rep was asked by they don't support Theora, the answer was often that the patent situation was too shady for them.

Why is that so? Because MPEG-LA (and Thomson before them with Vorbis) played the FUD card ("Surely there must be patents that cover that codec, no?")

If that Jobs mail is legit (which I doubt, BTW, because published Jobs mails are usually fake), then MPAG-LA calling for a patent pool is the best way to uncover patents and then let Xiph code around them.

And that's why that won't happen. The most they'd produce will be a "sample" of patents, so they can continue playing the FUD game with "all the other patents".
And even that would be a surprisingly heavy-handed move, given their (rather successful) modus operandi of the last years.

Reply Score: 1

Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

Because MPEG-LA (and Thomson before them with Vorbis) played the FUD card ("Surely there must be patents that cover that codec, no?")


Do you even know what you are talking about? This story is not about an actual MPEG-LA press release. It's about a possibly fake e-mail which some random blogger published and who does not even claim to be from an MPEG-LA representative, but instead from "Steven Jobs" (or a secretary of his) who -- even if the mail is legit -- may not even have all the insight about the MPEG-LA personally.

For me, I regard this mail as fake until I see the actual MPEG-LA doing something in this direction.

Reply Score: 2

pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

Do you even know what you are talking about? This story is not about an actual MPEG-LA press release.

I don't consider this "news" news. It's just the old topic: Someone who profits from MPEG-LA (directly or indirectly) hints towards patents that apply to Xiph.org codecs.

That this is claimed to be Steve Jobs is just a minor detail.

What _would_ be news (which actually supports your sentiment about this being fake) is that this statement is unusually direct: "We collect patents" is much more than the usual "we might be sure that there may be patents"

Reply Score: 2

HARDCORE!
by wargum on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:21 UTC
wargum
Member since:
2006-12-15

Dude, this is HARDCORE stuff right there! Nuke the MPEG-LA! ;-)

I must say: I am shocked. I am totally on your side now, Thom. Google should be militant now and open sorce VP8 tomorrow AND switch over YouTube to Flash + HTML5 with VP8 tomorrow. Apple would be screwed, then. Them Android phones (and webOS) could just use hardware accelerated Flash and Apple would stand alone, totally naked! I can't stop smiling by that thought.

- Written on a Mac Pro

Reply Score: 1

RE: HARDCORE!
by Headrush on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:25 UTC in reply to "HARDCORE!"
Headrush Member since:
2006-01-03

Google should be militant now and open sorce VP8 tomorrow AND switch over YouTube to Flash + HTML5 with VP8 tomorrow. Apple would be screwed, then. Them Android phones (and webOS) could just use hardware accelerated Flash and Apple would stand alone, totally naked! I can't stop smiling by that thought.

Personal sediments aside, I'm afraid to tell you Apple wouldn't be screwed. You open it up and Apple could use it also.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: HARDCORE!
by wargum on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE: HARDCORE!"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

Personal sediments aside, I'm afraid to tell you Apple wouldn't be screwed. You open it up and Apple could use it also.

No! Their iDevices only have hardware acceleration for H.264, like everybode else. But if YouTube would only give you that inside a Flash container, Apple would be screwed. Their beautiful devices could only decode VP8 in VGA like resolutions. This would be so DOS like ;)

Got it?

The only way they could overcome this would be implementing Flash Player, which they wouldn't.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: HARDCORE!
by Zifre on Sat 1st May 2010 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: HARDCORE!"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

Their beautiful devices could only decode VP8 in VGA like resolutions.

VGA like resolutions? Isn't that basically what a phones screen resolution is? Is there really any point in being able to decode higher resolutions?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: HARDCORE!
by wargum on Sat 1st May 2010 00:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: HARDCORE!"
wargum Member since:
2006-12-15

On the iPad, yes!

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: HARDCORE!
by Zifre on Sat 1st May 2010 11:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: HARDCORE!"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

On the iPad, yes!

True, but if the iPad is the only device we have to leave out in order to have a free video future, I think it would be worth it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: HARDCORE!
by pgeorgi on Sat 1st May 2010 18:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: HARDCORE!"
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

No! Their iDevices only have hardware acceleration for H.264, like everybode else.

They'd probably ask their supplier to provide a new (and exclusive) firmware for the video codec function to accelerate Theora within 2 weeks (remember, acceleration is mostly software), and make sure no part of the system but the YouTube player is able to use it (so all other users of the platform still rely on h.264)

And just state in the changelog "re-enabled YouTube player" to obfuscate things slightly. And change the search provider to Bing in retaliation.

By the way, if I'm not mistaken about the chip in the older iDevices, its video codec function's firmware also ships with support for VC1, mpeg-4 (non AVC) and some realvideo version (probably the latest, which is said to be derived from mpeg). So it's not only h.264 they could support.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: HARDCORE!
by lemur2 on Sat 1st May 2010 08:43 UTC in reply to "RE: HARDCORE!"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Google should be militant now and open sorce VP8 tomorrow AND switch over YouTube to Flash + HTML5 with VP8 tomorrow. Apple would be screwed, then. Them Android phones (and webOS) could just use hardware accelerated Flash and Apple would stand alone, totally naked! I can't stop smiling by that thought.

Personal sediments aside, I'm afraid to tell you Apple wouldn't be screwed. You open it up and Apple could use it also.
"

Apple would, however, become a pariah worse than Microsoft.

No longer would Apple be seen as cool but expensive, but instead Apple products would be seen as undesirable, closed and expensive.

Word of mouth and bad PR karma could kill Apple within the year.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: HARDCORE!
by vivainio on Sat 1st May 2010 09:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: HARDCORE!"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


Word of mouth and bad PR karma could kill Apple within the year.


You put *way* too much faith in the clout geeks have in the consumer market.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: HARDCORE!
by bnolsen on Sat 1st May 2010 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: HARDCORE!"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

perhaps, but the market itself could kill apple. Motorola is a good example of how fast things can go bad.

Reply Score: 2

RE: HARDCORE!
by Fettarme H-Milch on Sun 2nd May 2010 12:00 UTC in reply to "HARDCORE!"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

Google should be militant now and open sorce VP8 tomorrow AND switch over YouTube to Flash + HTML5 with VP8 tomorrow.

And VP8 would be save of patents because...?

Reply Score: 2

Apple's and MS stake in MPEG-LA
by Headrush on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:21 UTC
Headrush
Member since:
2006-01-03

Anyone have any info on Apple's and Microsoft's stake in MPEG-LA?

From many of the comments it makes it sound like Apple/MS are controlling interests and its directly Steve J. and Steve B. doing this.

Whether VP8 predates h.264 or not, it appears MPEG-LA also holds tons of patents to various levels of MPEG-4, MPEG-2, VC-1, ...., and as messed up as patent law is in the USA this truly could be trouble for Theora.

Reply Score: 1

Google's Patents
by asupcb on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:24 UTC
asupcb
Member since:
2005-11-10

Does Google benefit in any real way from software patents? Depending upon how Bilski v. Kappos is decided, Google could just sue to try and overturn the whole idiocy behind the very idea of a software patent. It seems like patents cost Google and other companies more than help them.

Reply Score: 4

Fusion
Member since:
2005-07-18

Patent law should not apply to software - PERIOD. These laws generally do nothing to protect innovators. Instead, they protect companies with huge wallets to lock-down markets and stifle the industry.

Every menial idea in software can be awarded a patent. A new programmer or start-up risks infringement by merely entering the industry with a few lines of obvious logic!

At the very least, there should a "put up or shut up" IP law where -> if you insinuate or claim that another party treads upon your patents, you (the patent owner) are required to immediately and openly disclose which specific patents are being violated. Failure to disclose this information voluntarily or immediately upon request would absolve the alleged infringer.

I honestly don't care who came up with the idea of "swipe to unlock," "one-click" shopping. You should be able to innovate by evolving existing concepts---that will keep software moving forward. The best implementation wins out, as opposed to the biggest company with largest patent portfolio.

Reply Score: 6

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Not to mention that software patents can also destroy a hardware manufacturer by blocking the ability to write a driver or firmware.

Reply Score: 3

Possible salvation
by Zifre on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:27 UTC
Zifre
Member since:
2009-10-04

There are a few possibilities:

1) Apple is lying

2) There are patents, but they can be worked around

3) There are patents, but they will be invalidated

4) Apple is telling the complete truth

Unfortunately, I think it may be 4. However, there may be a solution:

Dirac is another open source codec (supposedly it rivals H.264, at least for high resolution), and there are no known patents against it. Fortunately, Dirac uses a completely different compression method (wavelet) than Theora and H.264 and almost all other codecs. This means that there are probably fewer, if any, patents on which it infringes.

The other possible defense (which could also apply for Theora, but it would be harder), is to get support from OIN and similar groups. I can imagine that if OIN and all similar groups, as well as Google, pooled their patents together, they would be able to come to an agreement with the MPEG-LA.

And on a side note, all these idiots should cease to exist.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Possible salvation
by kahen on Fri 30th Apr 2010 23:33 UTC in reply to "Possible salvation"
kahen Member since:
2009-09-07

What you think there are no patents that apply to Dirac? AFAIK wavelet techniques are patented up the wazoo---there's bound to be at least some overly broad patents out there that cover something needed to implement it efficiently.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Possible salvation
by Zifre on Sat 1st May 2010 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Possible salvation"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

What you think there are no patents that apply to Dirac?

I'm sure there are patents. I bet that Hello World infringes on patents. I'm just hoping that any patents that Dirac infringes on are obscure/old enough that no one will ever know. The BBC is not aware of any patents on which Dirac infringes.

AFAIK wavelet techniques are patented up the wazoo

I am not aware of this. Do you have evidence? IIRC, wavelet compression was patented a long time ago but the patents have expired.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Possible salvation
by JLF65 on Sat 1st May 2010 00:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Possible salvation"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

"AFAIK wavelet techniques are patented up the wazoo

I am not aware of this. Do you have evidence? IIRC, wavelet compression was patented a long time ago but the patents have expired.
"

The last time I did a patent search on wavelets used in data compression, I found over 3600 issued and valid (at least unless someone challenges them in court) US patents. The vast majority of the ones I read through were overlapping, vague, and broad enough to fly a 747 through. There's no way ANYTHING written to use wavelets can't be violating dozens to hundreds of patents. They probably wouldn't hold up in court, but do you want to spend years and tens of millions proving that? It's that threat of making a company spend that time and money that scares the PHBs into going with something like h.264.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Possible salvation
by Fettarme H-Milch on Sun 2nd May 2010 12:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Possible salvation"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

What you think there are no patents that apply to Dirac?

Wavelet technique is old. Very old. Wavelet techniques predate many current video techniques, but were never widely used, because of the bad performance on the hardware that was state of the art 20 or so years ago. ;-)

BBC only uses techniques on Dirac whose patents already ran out.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Possible salvation
by l3v1 on Sat 1st May 2010 07:22 UTC in reply to "Possible salvation"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

ompletely different compression method (wavelet) than Theora and H.264 and almost all other codecs

You should look a bit harder, you'll be surprised.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Possible salvation
by Fettarme H-Milch on Sun 2nd May 2010 12:02 UTC in reply to "Possible salvation"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

5) The mail's fake.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Possible salvation
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 2nd May 2010 13:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Possible salvation"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Except it's not. The headers are there. If this mail is fake, then so are all the other Jobs emails.

But hey, it's already interesting to see that the usual Apple bloggers have a lot of trouble fitting this email into their pro-Apple paradigm. Normally, these emails are all over the apple blogs within seconds. This email, however, has not been reported on by any of the usual suspects.

Reply Score: 1

FSF tactics are pathetic
by nt_jerkface on Sat 1st May 2010 00:31 UTC
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

Insulting Jobs in a letter is not going to change anything.


I will not argue here that it is ironic you find the Apple Store more open than Flash.


Oh but you will take the time to make a snide comment? Was this a letter or a forum post?

Dear Jobs,

You are a hypocritical prick. Please use a codec other than the one you like.

Oh and you should open source OSX.

- The FSF Brain Trust.


Now there's even more patent concerns with Theora. Of course Jobs is likely bluffing but that doesn't matter. All he has to do is talk about armies of lawyers in waiting until H.264 is widely adopted.

Theora advocates should really find a new cause. It really didn't have much of a chance without Google support. Chrome for Linux will have H.264 which is a huge improvement from the older Flash days when Linux would get the shaft.

Reply Score: 3

RE: FSF tactics are pathetic
by Beta on Sat 1st May 2010 09:39 UTC in reply to "FSF tactics are pathetic"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Learn to read, this was from a blog post by an FSFE member.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: FSF tactics are pathetic
by nt_jerkface on Sat 1st May 2010 19:25 UTC in reply to "RE: FSF tactics are pathetic"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

So what if he's with the European branch. FSF activists all over the world engage in pointless and futile protests. They're like the PETA of the software world.

Reply Score: 1

v ...
by Hiev on Sat 1st May 2010 01:09 UTC
RE: ...
by kaiwai on Sat 1st May 2010 02:24 UTC in reply to "..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Honestly, I don't think there is nothing more entertaiment than see a bunch of "Freedom" lovers pissed off on a propietary company.


Na, what is more funny is when you see people rush from one company to another according to how 'good' or 'evil' they are. Amazing how when Mac OS X was released Apple was the darling of the geek crowd then Apple started acting 'evil' so then there was a rush to *NIX but reality sinks that as a desktop it sucks, Windows 7 is released with cool features long with support for more open standards so there is a rush to Microsoft. Its funny watching people rush from one company to another hoping to find some sort of embodiment of 'goodness' in business form.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Gone fishing on Sat 1st May 2010 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Na, what is more funny is when you see people rush from one company to another according to how 'good' or 'evil' they are. Amazing how when Mac OS X was released Apple was the darling of the geek crowd then Apple started acting 'evil' so then there was a rush to *NIX but reality sinks that as a desktop it sucks, Windows 7 is released with cool features long with support for more open standards so there is a rush to Microsoft. Its funny watching people rush from one company to another hoping to find some sort of embodiment of 'goodness' in business form.


What planet are you from? This is some alternate universe right? Apple being the love of the Foss community and freedom loving geeks.

Apple has been "evil" for years predating OSX if geeks were interested in OSX its because of Darwin and BSD not because Apple is anti-evil.

Now the Foss community is running to MS as an anti-evil supporter of Opensource - are you mad. If MS is beginning to play nicely (and thats a big if) it is because it feels it has too.

Finally the OS desktop sucks - well my Linux desktop is superior in almost every way to the Vista desktop I use at work.

I'd say to characterise Apple and MS it would be: MS be evil if it advances the companies position and you can get away with it, Apple be evil if possible.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by bnolsen on Sat 1st May 2010 22:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

dont use such a broad brush on the open source communuty. microsoft is still plenty evil. Its always best to have your evil enemies using their own resources to destroy each other if possible.

Apple always has been more evil than microsoft, it's just they've never had any influence until recently.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by vivainio on Sat 1st May 2010 09:28 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


Na, what is more funny is when you see people rush from one company to another according to how 'good' or 'evil' they are.


Yeah, it cracks me up every time. This "personal ethics" nonsense is really getting in a way of honest american capitalism.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ...
by kaiwai on Sun 2nd May 2010 04:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, it cracks me up every time. This "personal ethics" nonsense is really getting in a way of honest american capitalism.


If you weren't so lazy at reading you would notice I put 'good' and 'evil' in quotations deliberately given how subjective those concepts actually are. I was attacking the so-called 'good' and 'evil' of a company given that such terms are subjective and based on ones own benefit or harm done by such actions. In the case of h264, what some people call evil others would say that it is decisive leadership to finally decide to standardise on single CODEC instead of the spaghetti soup that exists.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: ...
by vivainio on Sun 2nd May 2010 06:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


If you weren't so lazy at reading you would notice I put 'good' and 'evil' in quotations deliberately given how subjective those concepts actually are.


That's why I said "personal ethics". They are by definition subjective.

In the case of h264, what some people call evil others would say that it is decisive leadership to finally decide to standardise on single CODEC instead of the spaghetti soup that exists.


Both are right, and it's okay if either group vote with their feet.

Reply Score: 2

Well...
by Neolander on Sat 1st May 2010 05:11 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

News like that make me wish that there was a god, and that He had some spare nukes for us mankind...

*shocked*

Edited 2010-05-01 05:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Anyone found NOT using
by circlomanen on Sat 1st May 2010 06:33 UTC
circlomanen
Member since:
2008-11-02

Iphony, Ipad, Imac, Iskirt, Itrousers, Ishoes, Ieye, Ihand, Imouth, Ibrain, Imoney, Ithought and all other apple producta are criminals. The are the "freethinkers" and apple has patents covering all free forms of thougt.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Anyone found NOT using
by circlomanen on Sat 1st May 2010 06:44 UTC in reply to "Anyone found NOT using"
circlomanen Member since:
2008-11-02

the thought "OMG this Iphone is soo cool, i must buy it" comes under a more permitive licens. You are allowed to use that thought as many times you like and you can even share that thought with your friends without paying an additional fee. That is Apple using and pushing more open licenses.

Reply Score: 2

I'm so angry I wanted to post twice:
by crhylove on Sat 1st May 2010 07:42 UTC
crhylove
Member since:
2010-04-10

FUCK STEVE JOBS AND ALL THOSE SHITTY PROPRIETARY CORPORATIONS SELFISHLY ATTEMPTING TO STIFLE HUMANITY FOR PATHETIC NICKLES. READ SOME BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, LEARN SOME HUMILITY, RELEASE THE CODE, AND GROW THE FUCK UP!!!!

Reply Score: 5

But
by Soulbender on Sat 1st May 2010 08:31 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

<delete>

Edited 2010-05-01 08:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

.i.
by n0xx on Sat 1st May 2010 08:35 UTC
n0xx
Member since:
2005-07-12

apple and ms can bite my shiny metal ass for all i care. The web is supposed to be Free, and fuck me if i ever gonna pay a nickle for watching a god damn video on the web...

Now more than ever the time is right to punish those who do us wrong. Don't buy apple, don't buy ms. Choose android & Linux... unfortunately Linux/BSD is the only alternative... If only haiku was ready for prime time... ;)

Be a militant consumerist! Fuck apple and ms right in the rear! For a Free internet. If Theora is not worth fighting for, then we can all just go fuck ourselves an be marry cause Linux will die eventually!

This is the time to come forth and stick to your guns and give the middle finger to both apple and ms....

And bwt, oracle can also lick my balls: YOU. DO. NOT. FUCK. WITH. MYSQL. PERIOD! In the eternal words of the philosopher Duke Nukem: Eat shit and die!

That is all...

Reply Score: 7

Copied
by iwod on Sat 1st May 2010 09:15 UTC
iwod
Member since:
2006-05-02

This is great. After all, under the current system, Theora is bound to get sued anyway. So why use something that will cause problems.

Yes, i know we all want, everything to be free. But we live in Real World, not some fantasy world. To use Theora, supporters should think get rid of Patents system and not about condemning H.264 patents holder . Afterall they spend A LOT of money into R&D. And those people who work hard on R&D in Uni, or Labs, need to feed themself or their Family.

So Yes, unless you didn't realize, they are human afterall, and they also need money.

And as to Licensing Fees? - That is called return of Investment - If you dont like this idea you should really touch stocks either.

P.S - Of coz, getting rid of Patents would also be a Win for H.264, since it offer much better quality anyway.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Copied
by Beta on Sat 1st May 2010 09:44 UTC in reply to "Copied"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, i know we all want, everything to be free. But we live in Real World, not some fantasy world. To use Theora, supporters should think get rid of Patents system and not about condemning H.264 patents holder . Afterall they spend A LOT of money into R&D. And those people who work hard on R&D in Uni, or Labs, need to feed themself or their Family.


You really think the R&D money members of the MPEG-LA spent to develop their codecs had any bearing on another independent invention?

The assumption nowadays is that if you’ve made anything, and someone else owns the monopoly for it (thats what a patent is), that you’ve some-how copied their direct work.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Copied
by Soulbender on Sat 1st May 2010 10:20 UTC in reply to "Copied"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

So are you saying the people who created Theora did not spend time and effort on it and don't need to feed their families?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Copied
by lemur2 on Sat 1st May 2010 14:50 UTC in reply to "Copied"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Yes, i know we all want, everything to be free. But we live in Real World, not some fantasy world. To use Theora, supporters should think get rid of Patents system and not about condemning H.264 patents holder . Afterall they spend A LOT of money into R&D. And those people who work hard on R&D in Uni, or Labs, need to feed themself or their Family.


Pffft.

H264 is the standard used in Blueray players and also in digital TV transmission. R&D effort spent in developing H264 has been recouped years ago.

Royalties being gathered now are pure cream.

This is not about feeding anybodies families, this is pure unadulterated corporate greed and rip-off.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Copied
by howitzer86 on Wed 5th May 2010 11:21 UTC in reply to "Copied"
howitzer86 Member since:
2008-02-27

I've thought about that. In the real world people get paid for the work they do. Chances are, the programmers behind the product have already been paid. Unless they work for themselves, programmers rarely receive royalties for their work - so who are you paying when you pay for the right to use patented software? The executives of course - Representatives of The Company.

In the case of commercial software such as Final Cut, you've already paid for the license, why should one also pay MPEG-LA for the right to use part of software they've already paid for?! Maybe this trickles down by guranteeing an income for The Company(s) behind this format, but the reality is Apple, Microsoft, and even Google don't have a problem filling their coffers with their services and software licenses.

After realizing that the patent money goes past the programmers and into the pockets of bean counters, I decided not to care about patents.

Should I somehow infringe on one and get sued, I decided it would probably be unjust and I would be very loud about it - with or without a gag order. If I ran a company, I would simply make sure we had good lawyers on hand and a significant amount of money specifically for fighting in court.

But in the mean time, I wouldn't be worried about patents, because lately it seems as though no matter who you are, or what you do, you're going to infringe on someones intellectual property. Everyone can be sued over everything these days. Either you can worry about it and give yourself an aneurysm, or you can be defiant, prepare for it, and do what you want to do. (I do believe copyright should be respected though).

Reply Score: 1

Wait a year and use MPEG1.
by bhtooefr on Sat 1st May 2010 11:29 UTC
bhtooefr
Member since:
2009-02-19

MPEG1 is just about to be old enough that a reference implementation from 1991 cannot possibly be covered under any US patents.

H.261 now must be unencumbered, although it's too restrictive for modern video - CIF and QCIF resolutions are it, for the 1990 implementation.

Yes, I'm suggesting saying "screw it all, and just use 20 year old technology to avoid patents." That's 100% legally safe, as long as you stay with codecs that themselves are that old, and don't infringe on copyright of those codecs.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wait a year and use MPEG1.
by howitzer86 on Wed 5th May 2010 11:34 UTC in reply to "Wait a year and use MPEG1."
howitzer86 Member since:
2008-02-27

If anyone did that, it would be proof that software patents stifle innovation.

The large companies behind MPEG-LA have considerable control over what we view on our computers, and they are going to avoid giving credence to that fact by making sure we use their most patent encumbered formats.

Reply Score: 1

FUD
by marcp on Sat 1st May 2010 12:09 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

No fears. MPEG-LA is just a bunch of lazy slacker, it's RIAA of codec industry. I wouldn't be that much surprised, as they have already said some idiotic and unproven stuff. Wait for the lawyers and court. Unless that happens - just do your job, OSS. Some people just like to spread FUD.

Reply Score: 2

ban Apple products
by Janvl on Sat 1st May 2010 13:10 UTC
Janvl
Member since:
2007-02-20

I said it before, ban Apple products out of your life. Apple treats his customers like shit.

Reply Score: 2

"jackbooted thugs"
by Vinegar Joe on Sat 1st May 2010 13:11 UTC
Vinegar Joe
Member since:
2006-08-16

I think you meant "black turtlenecked thugs"......

Reply Score: 3

US Patent laws
by Radio on Sat 1st May 2010 14:36 UTC
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

Isn't this ugly mess only possible because of the US Software Patent legislation? Isn't it possible to relocate projects to Canada (like OpenBSD did) or Europe to evade this? The worldwide nature of he internet makes it difficult for government to regulate it (for example for copyright infrigment, or libel laws); why does those patents-in-US-only war should be internet world war one?

Reply Score: 3

To translate MS and Apple:
by darknexus on Sat 1st May 2010 14:37 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

You may not have a free video codec, because we don't want you to. We rule you, so bend over and take it like a good little consumer!

Reply Score: 4

you wanna go deep, i'll take you deep
by rebel787 on Sat 1st May 2010 16:29 UTC
rebel787
Member since:
2007-01-13

"You wanna go D.E.E.P., I'll take ya D.E.E.P.
You know you fucked up when you let my mind creep
Deeper than the page of a book let me look
You let me hit the stage now I got my folks hooked like D.E.E.P" - quote from OUTKAST

There's a LOT more to this than codecs. updated UBUNTU, Fedora and the rest of Linux disto's are about to get released. UBUNTU already here and the desktop experience from my current 9.10 is awesome! Linux Distro's rule especially since moving to consoles for gaming fix.

I was against the dumb down devices like ipad etc. Hmmm and Windows was like a super villain that just won't stay dead.
With netbooks, ipad's and the now dead courier + super cool consoles (purely thinking games here - damn sony!) ... well, LINUX distro's is kicking ass ;)

Never before did I feel such hope and not just hope but in-your-face pc desktop joy.

The uneasiness had to return. freakin hell.
Why does everything need to be a battle. can't we all just get along?

Reply Score: 1

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess "they" feel that everyone who uses linux is a thief, even if they (user) don't know they are yet. Linux users simply cannot be trusted to pay for a product and honor licenses.

(This is not MY opinion, it's all I can think of that would explain the behavior of software, video and music retailers/creators).

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Where is the hell? Chrome for Linux will have H.264. Most of the big publishers like Hulu are going to keep serving Flash for desktop browsers. This big move to HTML5 video is mostly just hype from the tech press. The best thing about HTML5 is that it is giving Adobe some competition. Flash isn't going anywhere.

Edited 2010-05-01 20:12 UTC

Reply Score: 2

rebel787 Member since:
2007-01-13

Where is the hell? Chrome for Linux will have H.264. Most of the big publishers like Hulu are going to keep serving Flash for desktop browsers. This big move to HTML5 video is mostly just hype from the tech press. The best thing about HTML5 is that it is giving Adobe some competition. Flash isn't going anywhere.


If Theora is chosen as standard, it will obviously be good press for theora but more importantly my friend ...
All OS platforms will in effect be promoting open standards.
Take that idea further. It will be good press for say...hmmmmm... Ubuntu.

Everything was falling into place and someone was having nightmares about this.

Is it that hard to imagine that Stevie might be thinking :"Hell no. Oh hell no. We can't allow free good press on this scale. This is a potential game changer! freakin hell!"

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Where is the hell? Chrome for Linux will have H.264. Most of the big publishers like Hulu are going to keep serving Flash for desktop browsers. This big move to HTML5 video is mostly just hype from the tech press. The best thing about HTML5 is that it is giving Adobe some competition. Flash isn't going anywhere.


If I could add a million points to that post I would; the problem is that many people, including myself, have been suckered into this HTML5 hype (in my case, for no other reason that hatred of Flash because of the issues faced on the Mac) but having learned more about the situation between Flash and Adobe - the only people Apple is screwing over is its own customers.

You're right, Flash is going to hang around for a long time but the RDF from Apple does a mighty fine job making the populace believe there is this rebellion against Flash.

Reply Score: 2

Buy Nokia
by Haicube on Sat 1st May 2010 16:53 UTC
Haicube
Member since:
2005-08-06

Just checking the MPEG-LA website etc. Checking for patents of for instance h264 doesn't have Nokia as a member (however indeed Ericsson and sony and apple etc).

I would bet on going with Nokia and simply skip the others phone products at least, that's a simple start!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Buy Nokia
by oinet on Sun 2nd May 2010 00:48 UTC in reply to "Buy Nokia"
oinet Member since:
2010-03-23

Just checking the MPEG-LA website etc. Checking for patents of for instance h264 doesn't have Nokia as a member (however indeed Ericsson and sony and apple etc).

I would bet on going with Nokia and simply skip the others phone products at least, that's a simple start!


Yeah, like Nokia don't have blood on their hands for supporting dictators with surveillance..

Edited 2010-05-02 00:50 UTC

Reply Score: 1

still can't beat the hardware
by elanthis on Sat 1st May 2010 17:26 UTC
elanthis
Member since:
2007-02-17

If only some company offered REAL competition against the MacBook Pros.

Have you seen the new 17" models? 9+ hours of battery life (under real, actual usage!), a better-than-1080p resolution screen that is absolutely gorgeous, an actually usable for gaming and real work GPU (two GPUs, in fact), and general high quality parts and design. And it runs Windows 7 beautifully and easily.

All of the competitors can pull off equally powerful systems, and a few even have nice high quality screens, but they cost nearly as much ($1500+) and yet still saddle the user with 1.5 hour battery lifetimes and 5x the bulk and weight. And all of these machines come with crapware-infested Windows installs, making them less pleasant Windows machines than the Apples!

When Dell, HP, Sony, Lenovo, or ANYBODY offers a laptop computer that is actually the equivalent of a MacBook Pro, I will stop telling creative professionals (in my line of work, that's game artists and game developers) to buy Apple. I already tell students and business types to aim for cheaper $500 machines from Dell or ASUS or whoever because those make more sense for their needs. I'd love to be able to point people who really do need a very high end laptop to a non-Apple machine that's actually WORTH that price point, but there simply is no such thing.

Apple gets to be dicks because they make the best products around right now. Until somebody bothers to compete with them on their turf, they'll continue to make a lot of sales, make a shitload of money, and have the freedom to lockdown their software however they want. They very literally have a monopoly on high-end laptops and have very little competition in the high-end desktop space as well.

Heck, I live in Redmond literally across the street from Microsoft's main campus (I'm here for the game companies, but this apartment complex is like 95% Microsoft employees), and I still see more Apple laptops than all the other brands combined. That's how nice those machines are: even the Microsoft people know they're the best hardware you can find, period. Most of the game developers around here use the Apple hardware too, even though Mac OS X is not a "gaming OS" (these are the best Windows 7 machines you can buy, though).

Don't get me started on the iPhones. Android gets great reviews, but I've yet to see anyone who can honestly say that the HTC hardware is in any way preferable over the iPhone hardware. I was looking forward to the HTC Incredible but unsurprisingly it turns out the battery life is barely worth crap and the screen is effectively unusable in sunlight. Give me iPhone-quality hardware on Verizon with Android and I'd be very happy, but once again no such thing exists.

Microsoft gets their monopolies often by being unethical, and then they abuse their position. Apple gets its monopolies by actually making absolutely great products, and then they abuse their position. Either way the monopolies suck, but at least in the Apple case the monopoly could be broken if some company just actually freaking tried to compete with them.

Reply Score: 4

RE: still can't beat the hardware
by Radio on Sat 1st May 2010 17:46 UTC in reply to "still can't beat the hardware"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

This has no relationship whatsoever with the subject at hand.

Except maybe that "creative professionals" may not want to have to pay exorbitant fees for simply displaying a video on their website.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


Most of the game developers around here use the Apple hardware too, even though Mac OS X is not a "gaming OS" (these are the best Windows 7 machines you can buy, though).


I call BS. I know game developers at a couple studios in that area and they sure as hell don't use Macs. They contract with a company like Dell and get maxed out desktops with next-day parts replacement. I doubt even Popcap has a majority Mac workplace.

As for desktop value the Mac Pro is a complete rip-off when at $2500 it comes with a single quad xeon (xeon?????) and only 3 gigs of RAM. SSD isn't even an option.

Look at their RAID option:
Mac Pro RAID Card $700

Oh and what type of RAID card would that be? They're going to charge $700 and just call it a Mac RAID card? No brand name? No specs? This is RAID for suckers.

Your claim about MS employees loving Macbooks is also questionable. I'm in Redmond sometimes and I don't see a lot of Macbooks at the coffee shops. Seattle on the other hand.

As for Macbooks they have good battery life but that isn't because of the hardware. Their price/performance ratio is poor and both Sony and Asus have better screens. You can't remove the battery, you only get white which is a bad color for heavy use and then there are Apple service charges if the thing breaks out of warranty. Oh and on top of it all you get a glowing Apple on the back so you can make sure to provide free advertising even if the room is dark.

Edited 2010-05-01 21:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

SSD in macs is the worst choice you could do while buying a new MacBook. It's a very expensive option (far more thant the price of the SSD disk itself), and OSX doesn't have TRIM support. So the SSD loses a great part of its performance within a few months of use.

Isn't there a patent in putting a SSD in a computer?

Edited 2010-05-01 22:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

If only some company offered REAL competition against the MacBook Pros.

Have you seen the new 17" models? 9+ hours of battery life (under real, actual usage!)


Oh and one more thing you might want to judge the battery based on external review, not Apple's marketing materials.

Still, in regular use we're certainly not bumping past that magical 6 hour mark, and we'd have to really work for Apple's quoted 8-9 hours of battery. Through a day of "regular use," which involved some benchmarking and some iMovie, but mostly just web browsing and typing, with screen brightness hovering around 60-75 percent, WiFi on and an hour of Bluetooth we managed four hours and 34 minutes of juice.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/14/macbook-pro-core-i7-review/

Reply Score: 2

RE: still can't beat the hardware
by kaiwai on Sun 2nd May 2010 05:28 UTC in reply to "still can't beat the hardware"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

If only some company offered REAL competition against the MacBook Pros.

Have you seen the new 17" models? 9+ hours of battery life (under real, actual usage!), a better-than-1080p resolution screen that is absolutely gorgeous, an actually usable for gaming and real work GPU (two GPUs, in fact), and general high quality parts and design. And it runs Windows 7 beautifully and easily.


I am a long time Apple disciple but I can tell you that there is nothing special about the hardware which Apple sells (hence I am looking at going to the Windows world at the end of this year - Mac OS X is dying due to neglect by Apple whose focus is now on i-devices instead a balanced approach between i-devices and computers.

1) The times noted on the website you will never ever get in real life - the MacBook 13.3inch model I have right now promised a battery life of up to 7 hours, I can assure you that in my time that if you set the screen brightness to 3/4 and ran well written applications, you would be luck to hit 4 1/2 on a good day. If you wanted that sort of time you can easily purchase a Dell laptop and upgrade the battery to a 9 cell one or get an HP laptop and install a 12 cell battery thus still putting it under the cost of a MacBook Pro.

2) Mac OS X time to shine was when it was competing against Vista; Vista was to Mac OS X as the P4 was to the Athlon. A door opened and like AMD, Apple has failed to step up once Microsoft got back on its feet with the launch of Windows 7. Mark my words, a combination of obsessiveness with i-devices resulting in the ignoring of Mac OS X development on the desktop will ultimate translate into lower growth on the desktop. Not that Apple really gives crap as seen by their behaviour recently but for the 'true believer' its a bit disheartening.

3) OEM's have really lifted the game; ok, they're not as 'thin' as Apple but at least they don't reach a testicle scorching 100 degrees Celsius:

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/26/core-i7-equipped-macbook-pro-hit...

This thin obsession is truly is pathetic, it is almost as bad as those who rant on about how 'noisy' their desktop or laptop is; come on, if you're spending that much time worrying about the 'thickness' or 'noise' it is clearly obvious to me you're using your laptop merely as a symbol of productivity rather than actually doing anything productive with it. Give me a +1inch laptop that doesn't scorch my balls or overheat or suffer from long term internal damage due to high temperatures.

Edited 2010-05-02 05:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

VP8!
by Garibaldi3489 on Sun 2nd May 2010 05:49 UTC
Garibaldi3489
Member since:
2010-05-02

Very interesting indeed. Now I really hope Google will open-source VP8 as patent and license free!

Reply Score: 1

RE: VP8!
by Fettarme H-Milch on Sun 2nd May 2010 12:10 UTC in reply to "VP8!"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

Very interesting indeed. Now I really hope Google will open-source VP8 as patent and license free!

You mean like On2 did with VP3 to create Theora?
Seriously, if VP3/Theora is covered by patents not in possession of On2/Google, then its successor VP8 is likely covered by the same patents and possibly even more.

Edited 2010-05-02 12:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: VP8!
by Garibaldi3489 on Sun 2nd May 2010 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE: VP8!"
Garibaldi3489 Member since:
2010-05-02

You're right - its not practical or plausible but perhaps we'll all be surprised

Reply Score: 1

Comment by boldingd
by boldingd on Mon 3rd May 2010 18:03 UTC
boldingd
Member since:
2009-02-19

Having not read the comments yet:

Do note, just because someone announces that they may be attempting to assemble a patent pool to go after some given technology/vendor, it in no way means that A) they'll ever actually do it, or B) that their claim has any merit. I don't know if you've noticed, but nuisance suits are (distressingly) common in patent law: it's entirely possible, even probable that Apple's/MPEG-LA's claims are completely baseless, and their main goals are just to scare people away from Theora and make anyone who tries to use spend large amounts or precious capitol on legal defense.

(I know that all this is obvious; I say it only because Thom seems to take Apple's claims of holding an infringed patent at face value. I am dubious of their claim, and I'm going to want to see some of these supposed infringed patents before I panic and pee myself.)

Edited 2010-05-03 18:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Behind the open codec FUD attack
by lemur2 on Wed 5th May 2010 00:56 UTC
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Dana Blankenhorn of ZDNet has written a view on this topic:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=6393

The $5 million license fee for the H.264 codec required by MPEG LA acts as a barrier to entry, both a financial and moral one. A licensee that doesn’t follow Hollywood’s rules could have its license pulled, and thus its product.

The money is chump change for Microsoft, and the barrier a good thing. It’s a matter of principle for open source.

HTML5 is where that principle is being contested. The W3C policy is not to accept a royalty-bearing, proprietary technology into the Web standard. That’s why video has, until now, been a function separate from the browser.

The attack came now because Mozilla, makers of Firefox, only wants to support truly open codecs under HTML5. Google’s move to open source of VP8 is also said to be preparatory to making it the default codec in Chrome.

If open source becomes the default for HTML5 in Chrome and Firefox (and Opera too) Hollywood loses its technical control. Thus the dark claim by Jobs that a ” patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other ‘open source’ codecs now.”


(My bold, BTW. First bold: good reason why Google cannot tolerate being beholden to MPEG LA. Second bold: Further confirmation that H.264 cannot be the HTML5 codec).

This article seems spot on to me. This FUD spreading is probably aimed at the W3C, and not at the courts at all. However, I can't see how this FUD will change W3C's royalty-free policy at all, on behalf of the interests of only a very few software vendors, and at the expense of everyone else using video on the web.

Edited 2010-05-05 01:01 UTC

Reply Score: 2